Loveloudfest and LDS approval?

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

"God loves you as you are" carries the implication (to my ears, at least) that God is okay with you being exactly as you are, with no changes. This is clearly false for any of us; specifically, it is false for practicing homosexuals. So while the words are true per se, they convey a false meaning. This is the root of the problem some of us have.

I envision the following as a not-unlikely progression:

Pro-homosexuality group: We want to have a rally to deter gay teens from suicide!
LDS Church: We approve of that stated goal.
[Rally takes place, and unsurprisingly is a statement of pride in homosexual activity and an encouragement for suicidal "gay" teens to embrace "their" homosexuality]
LDS Church: Embracing a sinful practice isn't what we were supporting.
Pro-homosexuality group: How evil you are! Gay teens embracing who they Really Are is the only way to stop their suicides! And who they Really Are is...GAY!!! HOORAY!!

But as others have pointed out, it's not our decision. I support our leaders, even as I fully expect a betrayal similar to the above to take place.

Tom Christofferson is apparently going to be a part of this.  I wonder whether the event might see an impromptu appearance by his brother Todd?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

"God loves you as you are" carries the implication (to my ears, at least) that God is okay with you being exactly as you are, with no changes. This is clearly false for any of us; specifically, it is false for practicing homosexuals. So while the words are true per se, they convey a false meaning. This is the root of the problem some of us have.

I envision the following as a not-unlikely progression:

Pro-homosexuality group: We want to have a rally to deter gay teens from suicide!
LDS Church: We approve of that stated goal.
[Rally takes place, and unsurprisingly is a statement of pride in homosexual activity and an encouragement for suicidal "gay" teens to embrace "their" homosexuality]
LDS Church: Embracing a sinful practice isn't what we were supporting.
Pro-homosexuality group: How evil you are! Gay teens embracing who they Really Are is the only way to stop their suicides! And who they Really Are is...GAY!!! HOORAY!!

But as others have pointed out, it's not our decision. I support our leaders, even as I fully expect a betrayal similar to the above to take place.

I think the Church is establishing the expectation, standard and example in opening up a dialog and keeping it respectful, civil and loving. Others' mileage may vary!

[Grunt]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the Church is establishing the expectation, standard and example in opening up a dialog and keeping it respectful, civil and loving. Others' mileage may vary!

I don't particularly agree, but I'm not an expert on the situation or church practice.  To me, if the church really wants to help these kids and really wants to remain unsupportive of sinful acts, they should plan their own action.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I don't particularly agree, but I'm not an expert on the situation or church practice.  To me, if the church really wants to help these kids and really wants to remain unsupportive of sinful acts, they should plan their own action.

They have their own action. It's called the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which gospel is the gospel of faith, repentance and obedience.

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Grunt said:

I don't particularly agree, but I'm not an expert on the situation or church practice.  To me, if the church really wants to help these kids and really wants to remain unsupportive of sinful acts, they should plan their own action.

I think you do agree, because this is part of preaching the Gospel and organizing the saints into the body of Christ.

[JoCa]

On ‎8‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 1:26 PM, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't want to get into a debate about this, but I do want to know if I understood you correctly.

Being homosexual is not a sin, acting on it is.  So are you saying that we shouldn't tell a homosexual child that God loves them as they are? I'm trying to imagine what else you would say.  

"Johnny, sorry God doesn't love you completely, because you're flawed. Just try to be obedient and perhaps maybe there will still be some hope for you." 

Surely that isn't what you meant, but if not what DID you mean?

I really dislike the  phrasing "being homosexual is not a sin, acting on it is" and "homosexual child".  Just like Elder Bednar said, STTE we should not define ourselves by our sexuality, i.e. saying "homosexual child" IMO is really disingenuous.  Simply by doing that we are already defining a child by their feelings.  If I have anger problems, do I label myself as a "anger adult", I might have anger issues or I might have a alcohol issues but it doesn't define me.  

The homosexual revolution isn't about an individual who has feelings of attraction for the same sex, it is about an identity as a "homosexual". Honestly, (I might ruffle feathers) I would say identifying as a homosexual is a sin, whereas identifying as someone who has struggles with attractions to the same sex is not.  There is a very powerful difference between the two.

The homosexual movement, when they say God love you as you are, what they really mean is you are a homosexual, God loves you as a homosexual and therefor there is no need to change part of who you are. 

The most insidious part of the homosexual movement is that is actually denies the power of change, real change and the power of the Atonement.  The movement says, God loves you as you are and changing who you are is impossible.  The unallowable speech with the homosexual movement, the one thing that they will deny to the nth degree is that over time one can change who they are, they can change the very core being. It is an ideology that is 100% antithecal to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I know thoughts and feelings can change.  It has happened to me personally.  I have had struggles over certain thoughts and over certain feelings.  Through the power of Christ, my very being has changed and is continually changing.  As I become more of who God wants me to become, I can change my very emotions.  And that is what we are really talking about SSA is all about emotions and feelings. The very sad thing about the homosexual movement as I see it within the Church is that we end up denying the very power that we are supposed to have such a testimony of . . .the Power of Christ to change who we are to make us a new man or a new woman.

So no having SSA isn't a sin; however there is a bit of hypocrisy that unfortunately we are not willing to face. If Christ expects me as a married man to not "look on a woman to lust after her" b/c I have already committed adultery in my heart, then surely Christ expects those who have SSA to not "look on the same flesh to lust after" so as to not commit sin in his heart.

And the beautiful thing is that overtime as I grow as a married man I can become more like Christ, I can change my heart to follow his instructions more fully. It has happened in my life.  If it has happened in my life, through the Atonement of Christ, why can it not happen in someone else's life who has SSA. Do I have such little faith as to deny the Power of Christ to make that change in their hearts, in their minds, in their feelings.  No I will not deny that power. For God truly can work miracles.

Quite honestly, it is a lack of faith and an unwillingness to change.  It is more comfortable, it is easier to say whelp "God just loves me as I am", rather than put for the hard effort that it takes to change oneself.  The haters say that "praying the Gay away" in a sarcastic manner. . .quite frankly they have no clue what they are talking about-they deny the power of prayer, the power of God, the power of the Atonement.

We read in the Scriptures:

19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust.

Sometimes I wonder if the easiness of modern life and general prosperity has weakened our faith. When Moses came down from the Mount he had the higher law and saw the people dancing and worshiping an idol cow; he broke the tables and gave the lessor law.  Is our idol cow the philosophies of men as told to us by modern say philosophers??

Instead of looking towards homosexuality for higher suicide rates, maybe there are other causes:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/05/smartphones-ruining-mental-health-teens.html

And I bet an already confused teenager that suffers with (of course the homosexual crowd would say saying suffers with is hateful) SSA is probably a lot more vulnerable . . .

 

 

Edited August 20, 2017 by JoCa

[Sunday21]

Sorry have not read the thread. Home sick from church.

The lds public affairs department works hand in glove with the brethren. They do not go rogue. 

I have a close friend who is a personality psychologist. He tells me that Protestant church's have a personality split between members and the clergy. The clergy are kind, warm and accepting of others. The membership are not.

Do we have this split in the lds church? Are the brethren more loving and accepting than many members?

i think that the answer is yes. I think that the brethren wish to pull us in their direction. The church has a number of programs and policies which are useful in themselves but also spread the message of loving others. Note the recent statements from the church about disagreeing without being disagreeable. Note the multiethnic pictures found in lds publications, the I Was a Stranger Program, and the approval of this antisuicide campaign for gay youth.

I think the brethren wish us to become more loving and accepting of others. In fact more Christlike. 

 

Edited August 20, 2017 by Sunday21

[Suzie]

Quote

Honestly, (I might ruffle feathers) I would say

identifying as a homosexual is a sin, whereas identifying as someone who has struggles with attractions to the same sex is not.  There is a very powerful difference between the two.

 Identifying yourself as heterosexual or as someone who is attracted to the opposite sex are the exact SAME thing. If you want to make a differentiation between your two options, the second one you provide seems to imply the person has "struggles" or "doubts" with regards to his/her own sexuality therefore identifying themselves as someone who "struggles" with same sex attraction is perhaps a better description for them (if they feel that way).

I have no issue with the fact that some people might be confused or do not know where they stand with regards to their own sexuality, fair enough. However, there are many who are very sure and identify themselves as gay or homosexual. Regardless, whether they identify themselves as struggling with same sex attraction or as gay is NOT a sin.  Even the Church created a website called "mormonandgay.lds.org".

The Church certainly does not agree with your point of view, I am sure you know this.  I understand this is your personal opinion and I respect it,  I just do not want others to believe it is the Church position.

For members and investigators lurking the forums: The Church position is clear:

Quote

Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.

https://www.lds.org/topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

Edited August 20, 2017 by Suzie

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

 Identifying yourself as heterosexual or as someone who is attracted to the opposite sex are the exact SAME thing. 

I'm probably being pedantic; but if it's true that our betters are now telling us there are at least fifty-ought gender identities/sexualities, then we're probably well beyond the point where anyone can assuredly say that two "sexualities" are really just the same thing.

We'll have none of your cisnormative patriarchal labels HERE, young lady.  This is an enlightened forum, it is!

#checkyourprivilege   

Edited August 20, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I'm probably being pedantic; but if it's true that our betters are now telling us there are at least fifty-ought gender identities/sexualities, then we're probably well beyond the point where anyone can assuredly say that two "sexualities" are really just the same thing.

We'll have none of your cisnormative patriarchal labels HERE, young lady.  This is an enlightened forum, it is!

#checkyourprivilege   

Pedantic? Never. (offtopic: When are you going to start a nice LDS history topic to discuss. It is always me! )

JAG, my whole point is: Even if someone wants to identify themselves with any of those 50 gender identities, doing so is not a sin. I am concerned when we state otherwise.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 hours ago, Suzie said:

 Identifying yourself as heterosexual or as someone who is attracted to the opposite sex are the exact SAME thing.

Really? 

So...

Physically... the EXACT same? 

Psychologically... the EXACT same? 

Sociologically... the EXACT same? 

Emotionally... the EXACT same? 

Religiously... the EXACT same? 

Really really? 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

On 8/19/2017 at 6:00 PM, JoCa said:

I really dislike the phrasing "being homosexual is not a sin, acting on it is" and "homosexual child". 

You might dislike it, but I keep in mind that I used only to repeat your phraseology.

Thanks for answering.  Since I said I wasn't looking for a debate, I won't dissect your response with my responses.  Suffice it to say I disagree with most of what you said.  @Suzie and I are on the same page here.  

Edited August 21, 2017 by LiterateParakeet

[JoCa]

On 8/20/2017 at 11:48 AM, Suzie said:

Pedantic? Never. (offtopic: When are you going to start a nice LDS history topic to discuss. It is always me! )

JAG, my whole point is: Even if someone wants to identify themselves with any of those 50 gender identities, doing so is not a sin. I am concerned when we state otherwise.

Poppycock.  I identify as a squirrel. I live my life as a squirrel.  Am I ever going to do be able to do the things God requires of me necessary for Celestial Glory if I live my life as a squirrel?

Don't call it sin, call it sin-it doesn't matter what you call it.  Dress it up in all the pretty words your want to.  The fact remains, identifying as a squirrel will led me to my literal damnation (as in a damned river), wherein I will never reach my full potential as a Son of God.

So fine, you don't want to call it sin-the individual who identifies as a squirrel will never reach Celestial Glory unless they either a) repent of their desire to be a squirrel or b) healed of whatever infirmity is causing them to think they are a squirrel.  But if I identify as a squirrel, I'd think it would be a very cruel friend who would tell me, yes, yes JoCa it's quite alright that you identify as a squirrel.  Live your life as much as you want to as a squirrel-don't make any effort to not be a squirrel b/c God will make it right.

I say bull honky to the above.  A true act of love would be, JoCa, I understand you want to identify as a squirrel, but it is only by identifying as a Son of God that you can reach your full potential . . .it's called preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If I say to the squirrel identifying individual-God will make it right.  Do I not have to fight and battle against my desires of anger, against my desires against alcohol, against porn or against any other thing that will keep me from God.  Don't worry JoCa, God will take care of it.

Oh really . . . 

And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

Edited August 22, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

18 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

You might dislike it, but I keep in mind that I used only to repeat your phraseology.

Thanks for answering.  Since I said I wasn't looking for a debate, I won't dissect your response with my responses.  Suffice it to say I disagree with most of what you said.  @Suzie and I are on the same page here.  

?? Well this is a message board, if we didn't debate or conversation I'm not sure what else it would be for.  That's okay, I have no problem with your disagreement-I don't take offense by it.

[Suzie]

3 hours ago, JoCa said:

Poppycock.  I identify as a squirrel. I live my life as a squirrel.  Am I ever going to do be able to do the things God requires of me necessary for Celestial Glory if I live my life as a squirrel?

Don't call it sin, call it sin-it doesn't matter what you call it.  Dress it up in all the pretty words your want to.  The fact remains, identifying as a squirrel will led me to my literal damnation (as in a damned river), wherein I will never reach my full potential as a Son of God.

So fine, you don't want to call it sin-the individual who identifies as a squirrel will never reach Celestial Glory unless they either a) repent of their desire to be a squirrel or b) healed of whatever infirmity is causing them to think they are a squirrel.  But if I identify as a squirrel, I'd think it would be a very cruel friend who would tell me, yes, yes JoCa it's quite alright that you identify as a squirrel.  Live your life as much as you want to as a squirrel-don't make any effort to not be a squirrel b/c God will make it right.

I say bull honky to the above.  A true act of love would be, JoCa, I understand you want to identify as a squirrel, but it is only by identifying as a Son of God that you can reach your full potential . . .it's called preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ for pete's sake.

If I say to the squirrel identifying individual-God will make it right.  Do I not have to fight and battle against my desires of anger, against my desires against alcohol, against porn or against any other thing that will keep me from God.  Don't worry JoCa, God will take care of it.

Oh really . . . 

And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

Of course it matters how it is called, you said someone identifying as a homosexual is a sin. You are wrong according to the Church and I proved it to you through an official source.

Are you willing to admit the carelessness of your statement and admit the error or move on to something else?(unless you believe the Church is wrong on this one?).

 

 

[JoCa]

6 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Of course it matters how it is called, you said someone identifying as a homosexual is a sin. You are wrong according to the Church and I proved it to you through an official source.

Are you willing to admit the carelessness of your statement and admit the error or move on to something else?(unless you believe the Church is wrong on this one?).

 

 

??

No it's not careless.  Elder Bednar "There are no homosexual members of the Church".  Care to refute that? Are you willing to admit your carelessness?

Prove me wrong in what I said this evening.  I use a squirrel but it's easy to apply to other areas.

Big difference between saying I suffer with SSA vs. I am homosexual. One is an identity, the other is a weakness. As a man thinketh so is he.

Edited August 22, 2017 by JoCa

[Suzie]

3 hours ago, JoCa said:

??

No it's not careless.  Elder Bednar "There are no homosexual members of the Church".  Care to refute that? Are you willing to admit your carelessness?

Prove me wrong in what I said this evening.  I use a squirrel but it's easy to apply to other areas.

You are obviously not going to comment on the link I provided because it proves that the Church clearly states that someone identifying themselves as gay is NOT sin. But, hopefully those lurking the forum (which are the ones I am concerned about) will be able to see the link from the official source and know the difference. That's all I have to say.

 

Edited August 22, 2017 by Suzie

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

24 minutes ago, JoCa said:

?? Well this is a message board, if we didn't debate or conversation I'm not sure what else it would be for.  That's okay, I have no problem with your disagreement-I don't take offense by it.

Yes, we do have debates and coversation here.  My reluctance to debate this topic is two fold. First, I really don't have time right now.  Second, I've had this conversation before and nothing changes.  The only reason I said anything was because like Suzie, I don't want the homosexuals who read this thread to think all Mormons feel as you do.  If I get time, I will post church sources to back up my position.

[MrShorty]

@Suzie and @JoCa, may I interject this question into your debate:

Are the two statements: " Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin " from the lds.org SSA article that Suzie linked to and Elder Bednar's " There are no homosexual members of the Church " (which seems to be the overall point of this article https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/who-am-i also from lds.org) mutually exclusive statements? I have said before on this forum that I don't understand our theology of sexuality very well, and maybe some of that difficulty is that, if statements like this are mutually exclusive, that the Church sometimes seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth.

Or is it possible that one can identify as both a child of God (trying to keep this as our primary identity) and also identify as L, G, B, or T, (or A or I  or Q or how many letters can we add here and irritate those who hate having a long list of letters in the alternative identities list) or even heterosexual?

Edited August 22, 2017 by MrShorty

[person0]

Just found this story.  It is very Touching, and related to a general discussion about homosexuality:

 

[The Folk Prophet]

20 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@Suzie and @JoCa, may I interject this question into your debate:

Are the two statements: " Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin " from the lds.org SSA article that Suzie linked to and Elder Bednar's " There are no homosexual members of the Church " (which seems to be the overall point of this article https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/who-am-i also from lds.org) mutually exclusive statements? I have said before on this forum that I don't understand our theology of sexuality very well, and maybe some of that difficulty is that, if statements like this are mutually exclusive, that the Church sometimes seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth.

Or is it possible that one can identify as both a child of God (trying to keep this as our primary identity) and also identify as L, G, B, or T, (or A or I  or Q or how many letters can we add here and irritate those who hate having a long list of letters in the alternative identities list) or even heterosexual?

I was going to bring up this exact idea. That being said, it is not, in my opinion, that the church is actually speaking out of both sides of it's mouth, but rather that members want to pick and choose what idea fits their personal views of the matter and ignore the other ideas. In the case of homosexuality this is particularly confusing because the two concepts like what you've shared here (and other more drastic ones that everyone likes to now cast off as 'outdated') seem so divergent and it is difficult to reconcile them. I, as indicated by my questions, struggle to reconcile them myself. I believe, however, that they can be reconciled -- but not by taking the concepts one doesn't like and casting them away in favor of the cherry-picked statements that support one's own personal emotional connection to the matter.

Edited August 23, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[JoCa]

22 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@Suzie and @JoCa, may I interject this question into your debate:

Are the two statements: " Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin " from the lds.org SSA article that Suzie linked to and Elder Bednar's " There are no homosexual members of the Church " (which seems to be the overall point of this article https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/who-am-i also from lds.org) mutually exclusive statements? I have said before on this forum that I don't understand our theology of sexuality very well, and maybe some of that difficulty is that, if statements like this are mutually exclusive, that the Church sometimes seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth.

Or is it possible that one can identify as both a child of God (trying to keep this as our primary identity) and also identify as L, G, B, or T, (or A or I  or Q or how many letters can we add here and irritate those who hate having a long list of letters in the alternative identities list) or even heterosexual?

I highly encourage anyone to read this study by BYU Education and Law Journal, a great resource. 

http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1287&context=elj

Some great stuff here:

"A biopsychosocial model mediated by choice best represents the current state of the research on homosexuality. Homosexuality is not explained by either a simple biological model or a simple psychological model, nor can homosexuality be reduced to a simple matter of choice. Emerging scientific evidence supports the notion that homosexuality is not easily or simply defined and that homosexuals are not a homogeneous population. In addition, the terms "homosexual attraction," "homosexual orientation," and "homosexual identity" refer to distinctly different phenomena.

Homosexual attractions may emerge during adolescence and disappear. In fact, in one study, nearly 26% of twelve-year-olds reported being unsure about their sexual orientation.24 However, only 2-3% will self-identify as gay as adults.25 A homosexual orientation, which is a general affective response to members of one's own sex, appears to be fluid-it may wax or wane. A homosexual identity is a sociopolitical statement that one wishes to be gay identified. Frequently, the three distinct categories are merged in both the media and academia, making it even difficult to discuss the term homosexuality. Perhaps the more important questions are as follows: What can scientists say about the malleability of homosexuality? Once established, are homosexual attractions modifiable or changeable? Or, can an individual who is predominantly homosexual become predominantly heterosexual."

It is a really great article and falls in line with pretty much what I've said and thought most of my life.  Homosexual individuals are individuals who have had something which has gone awry in their life-it is from a toxic combination of the right disposition, mixed with the right timeframe mixed with the right environment. Those things combined lead to this sickness.  The same thing could be said though of most things that severely afflict the soul-pornography, alcohol, etc.  Unfortunately, the homosexual agenda has blinded just about everyone into this very sick ideology.

IMO the Church is trying to find the middle ground, one that stands up for fighting homosexuality for what it is-a very gross evil sin, and one that doesn't completely go against the massive propaganda machine that the LGBTQRS has turned into (and if people don't see it they have blinders on . . .when a man gets fired from a job for contributing to a anti-SSM 7 years ago, you know they are one of the most powerful lobbying and social advocacy groups in the US).

My guess is this middle ground way will continue for some time until it becomes perfectly clear, either the Church as an organization buys into the lie that LGBTetc are born that way, hence there is nothing wrong with it and hence as an organization it should do nothing to actively discourage it and should embrace it in all it's glory, or it drops the heavy hammer and makes it unequivocally clear that it is wrong.  Folks, the camel's nose is under the tent, anyone who doesn't see it is someone who quite frankly doesn't want to see it. Where it leads and how long God allows it to go on, is anyone's guess.

The thing that I find so fascinating about the modern Church culture is that as a people we are so dead set on making sure that other individuals, groups, etc. know that the current Church disavows any association with racism that they were "on the wrong side of history" and that today we are "on the right side of history".  How egotistical, how narcissistic, to think that we know so much more than our ancestors, we are so much more enlightened then those uncouth, uneducated slobs of past centuries.

Do you ever think that the day will come with the Church will disavow any association with things said on websites such as mormonandgays?  How positive are you that you are on the "right side of history"?  Will your ancestors look down on you for promoting an ideology that future generations see as evil?

IMO, the Church is speaking out of both sides of it's mouth-it is giving lip service to and applauding a platform for LGBTetc organizations to recruit and indoctrinate youth and at the same time shutting off the mic of those who dare to make such a statement in a Church meeting.  Someone who uses testimony meeting as their own mini, mormonandgays video story.  It will continue to go on until it becomes pretty clear that either a hard stance is taken or the Church acquiesces to it's demands.  Again anyone who doesn't see where the homosexual mormon advocates are leading this (i.e. homosexuals marrying in the temple) is blind as a bat.

It amazes me, we are members of Christ church, we know that Satan is the enemy of Christ and will do anything and everything to stop His Church, are there or are there not forces arrayed to try and destroy the Church? Just read "If I were the Devil", good stuff.

It goes without saying, but I will say it-I take a stand against evil behavior and these philosophies of men, but I don't in the least bit hate homosexuals; I hate the homosexual movement, but not those poor souls who are taken into mindset and an ideology that will not serve them well; as long as they continue down the road of homosexuality they can never and will never be able to enjoy the full fruits of what God has to offer them  . .and that is very, very sad.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

This Mormon Message perfectly expresses my feelings on this topic.  And I think applies well to what we are discussing here.  @Suzie have you seen this?  You'll like it.
 

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

6 hours ago, person0 said:

Just found this story.  It is very Touching, and related to a general discussion about homosexuality:

 

Wow!  That was amazing...the power of the Gospel and charity.  Thanks so much for sharing this.  I was very touched.  

[Sunday21]

I think the idea that you can be gay but not do gay explains well the church's position

https://www.lds.org/topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple

Pres Utchdorf "Many questions in life, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life," Uchtdorf said. "Until then, the truth is, God loves all his children, and because he loves us, we can trust him and keep his commandments."